Bringing Christianity into disrepute!

[Cooky]

In my mind, sex is not a distraction any more than any other loving interaction with another person is a distraction. In fact, I would see *all* such interactions as one of the things making life worth living.

And my guess is that 'highly conscious beings' would be able to share in a physical as well as intellectual manner and be quite compassionate and sincere.

Ive seen Atheists promote prostitution, pornography and orgy sex... Taking part in, or entertainng such ideas is a distraction, IMO..

But you're right, sex is an integral part of being human. I have 4 children myself. I don't frown on those who wish to live celibate lives - I see it as a respectful quality. Some Atheists, with seemingly juvenile consciences, do frown on it however, and often mock the Church for it's admiration of it.

 

[Polymath257]

Ive seen Atheists promote prostitution, pornography and orgy sex... Taking part in, or entertainng such ideas is a distraction, IMO..

None of those bother me, as long as there is no coersion and everybody is honest about it.

But you're right, sex is an integral part of being human. I have 4 children myself. I don't frown on those who wish to live celibate lives - I see it as a respectful quality. Some Atheists, with seemingly juvenile consciences, do frown on it however, and often mock the Church for it's admiration of it.

Mock? No. I just don't see it as a great thing. It's sort of like saying I will never eat chocolate again. I *like* chocolate. I don't see any good reason to *not* eat chocolate. Most people like to eat chocolate. But, I guess, if you want to not eat it, it really isn't my concern.

The same goes for sex. If you don't want to do it, that's your concern, not mine.

But it does seems strange to me.

 

[Baroodi]

Some extreme Christians, of the fundamentalist/Biblical literalist genre, bring the faith into disrepute with their unpleasant behaviour. Their attitude to the faith is most off putting, and is likely to have unbelievers running for the hills rather than wishing to take on board Christianity. I have been particularly disgusted by the nasty bigots who are anti-gay, they are evil, imo. There are many gay Christians in this world, as I have said before even Jesus could have been gay, as he supposedly had a disciple whom he loved. I would love to see the look on their faces if that could be proved to be correct.

Jesus !!
Peace be upon you God Messenger. I bear witness to God, that can`t be your behavior

 

[Cooky]

None of those bother me, as long as there is no coersion and everybody is honest about it.



Mock? No. I just don't see it as a great thing. It's sort of like saying I will never eat chocolate again. I *like* chocolate. I don't see any good reason to *not* eat chocolate. Most people like to eat chocolate. But, I guess, if you want to not eat it, it really isn't my concern.

The same goes for sex. If you don't want to do it, that's your concern, not mine.

But it does seems strange to me.

It's a form of discipline. Like with the concept of minimalism, the minimalist eliminates all in his life that is unnecessary, allowing him to focus more energy on the things he really wants to focus on *not the things the world places before him*. I don't see discipline as strange. Simplification can be relieving sometimes as well as healthy too.

 

[shmogie]

Some extreme Christians, of the fundamentalist/Biblical literalist genre, bring the faith into disrepute with their unpleasant behaviour. Their attitude to the faith is most off putting, and is likely to have unbelievers running for the hills rather than wishing to take on board Christianity. I have been particularly disgusted by the nasty bigots who are anti-gay, they are evil, imo. There are many gay Christians in this world, as I have said before even Jesus could have been gay, as he supposedly had a disciple whom he loved. I would love to see the look on their faces if that could be proved to be correct.

It can´t be proved correct, because it isn´t true.

Tell me how those nasty bigots are anti homosexuals, and don´t generalize, be very, very specific.

What is the attitude of our faith that you are whining about ? Again, please be specific, no generalizations.

Tell me about the unpleasant behavior you cite. How large a sampling was taken to come to this conclusion ? Do you know of a doctrine that requires Christian fundamentalists to be unpleasant ? In the USA alone there are tens of millions of fundamental Christians, do you contend that every one is unpleasant ?

You are expressing a non supported personal opinion. It means nothing except to the guy who likes it, say an anti Christian bigot, and passes it on to like minded souls.

 

[shmogie]

You have no evi

You wish to believe all that is true because it suits your POV, but there is no evidence it is so.

You have no evidence to support your allegations,. You wish to believe it because it supports your POV

 

[Road Warrior]

Some extreme Christians, of the fundamentalist/Biblical literalist genre, bring the faith into disrepute with their unpleasant behaviour. Their attitude to the faith is most off putting, and is likely to have unbelievers running for the hills rather than wishing to take on board Christianity. I have been particularly disgusted by the nasty bigots who are anti-gay, they are evil, imo. There are many gay Christians in this world, as I have said before even Jesus could have been gay, as he supposedly had a disciple whom he loved. I would love to see the look on their faces if that could be proved to be correct.

So what is your final solution for these "extreme Christians" and who do you determine the line between those who will live and those who won't?

As for Jesus, he was Jewish, not gay: He didn't leave home until he was 30, he went into his father's business, he thought his mother was a virgin and his mother thought he was God. (old joke)

 

[shmogie]

God is supposed to have got Mary up the duff, they didn't have IVF in those days, so sexual intercourse was the only way it could have happened. There is nothing wrong with being gay so if Jesus had been a gay I hope he had a satisfying sex life.

As long as one is in a consensual adult relationship and not cheating on one's partner there is nothing wrong with having sex, providing one takes sensible precautions, to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, or sexual disease.

All of this is your opinion, to which you are welcome, but it means jack.

 

[shmogie]

I don't belong to any non believer websites. My take on extreme Christianity is from personal experience.

Ah, personal experience. What would you say to someone whose personal experience is just the opposite ?

If someone in their personal experience was robbed and beaten up by a black guy, maybe 20 of them, is he justified in accusing the entire race as being criminal thugs ?

 

[Cooky]

I wonder if Atheists advocate any type of discipline that they would like to share.

Or perhaps the concept is taboo altogether?

 

[Polymath257]

I wonder if Atheists advocate any type of discipline that they would like to share.

Or perhaps the concept is taboo altogether?

Well, the discipline of study. The discipline of being kind to others. The discipline of being honest (with yourself and others). The discipline of learning to play an instrument. The discipline to live life to the fullest.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Most non-believers I encounter in this university city have clearly only read atheist propropaganda and visited atheist websites (they will however claim they've read every scripture know)

I read that a lot, but what atheist propaganda would that be? I visit no atheist web sites. Why would I? Atheism requires no other knowledge apart from the idea that a thing shouldn't be believed unless it is adequately supported by evidence, and evidence for gods is insufficient to support belief.

It's time for Christians to recognize that their bad PR comes from them. I learned about Christianity from Christians, first by being one for about a decade, then by seeing Christianity in the news, then by participating in religious message boards like this for the past decade, where I've done an informal survey of the spectrum of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Baha'i, and secular humanists, and have developed a spectrum for each from best to worst, with relative frequencies. That is, I learn about what the Baha'i religion does for its adherents by noting their relative disposition, intelligence, and character. And then compare that to the assortment of Christians we see, and secular humanists, to get a sense of how these ideologies affect people.

If people tell you that they don't think much of Christianity, it isn't due to propaganda. Most secular humanists are skilled critical thinkers and are not susceptible to indoctrination by propaganda.

I don't care how many times somebody repeats an idea, it doesn't become mine until I am given a reason to make it mine. It's the faith-based thinker that is susceptible to indoctrination. Once one becomes accustomed to skeptical empirical thought, others cannot simply insert ideas into his head through repetition. That's for Sunday school - you know, "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so." Rinse, lather and repeat. What's that if not indoctrination - repetition of an unevidenced idea until it is believed? What is saying grace at mealtime but indoctrination - repetition to reinforce a belief? Critical thinking entails rejecting this kind of passive absorption of unexamined ideas.

My tradition, secular humanism, promotes academic-style teaching and learning, which is radically different and rejects that kind of thinking. The evolutionary biology professor doesn't mindlessly repeat an unsupported meme. He'll show you the evidence that Darwin had at his disposal, and what he concluded from it. It probably won't be repeated again all semester except in your textbook, and you won't be asked if you believe it - just do you remember what was taught.

Incidentally, the secular humanists have the best track record. A greater fraction of them are very well educated, trained in critical thinking skills, and seem to be tolerant, good-natured, well-meaning, upright people. I haven't encountered a homophobic one yet. I like the kind of people this ideology generates very much.

The Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and the Baha'i all do pretty well.

Among Christians, the Catholics do the best. Among the Protestants, the fundamentalists and creationists do the worst. Just look at the white evangelicals in America. They vote for pedophiles and men who have affairs on their wives with porn stars. What should I think of that? How should I view a religion that turns out such people by the busload? Pretty poorly, I'd say, and that feeling doesn't come from any atheistic propaganda site. It comes right from Christianity.

 

[stvdv]

Some extreme Christians, of the fundamentalist/Biblical literalist genre, bring the faith into disrepute with their unpleasant behaviour. Their attitude to the faith is most off putting, and is likely to have unbelievers running for the hills rather than wishing to take on board Christianity. I have been particularly disgusted by the nasty bigots who are anti-gay, they are evil, imo. There are many gay Christians in this world, as I have said before even Jesus could have been gay, as he supposedly had a disciple whom he loved. I would love to see the look on their faces if that could be proved to be correct.

I agree with "imposing one's belief on others is unpleasant, to put it mildly"

Anti-gay Christians I would call them Anti-Christ (Bible says "love thy neighbor as thyself" being the HIGHEST Commandment. Belittling is not "love")

 

[sojourner]

Some extreme Christians, of the fundamentalist/Biblical literalist genre, bring the faith into disrepute with their unpleasant behaviour. Their attitude to the faith is most off putting, and is likely to have unbelievers running for the hills rather than wishing to take on board Christianity. I have been particularly disgusted by the nasty bigots who are anti-gay, they are evil, imo. There are many gay Christians in this world, as I have said before even Jesus could have been gay, as he supposedly had a disciple whom he loved. I would love to see the look on their faces if that could be proved to be correct.

First off, I’m a huge advocate for homosexuals, homosexual marriage, and equitable treatment of the LGBTQ community. But I do submit that Jesus could not have been gay. Here’s why:

In the culture of the Bible, sexual orientation was unknown. Since, in the Bible, Jesus is largely a mythic figure, we have to treat Jesus more as a character in a story when making assumptions about him that aren’t spelled out in the texts. That is, we can’t just assume that Jesus might have been some unspecified way or another. He just is as the texts portray him. Since the writers didn’t know homosexuality is a real thing, they could not have conceived of Jesus as being gay, and would not have written him into the story that way.

But I agree. Homosexuality is not addressed in the Bible, and the injunctions against homosexual acts have nothing to do with consensual, loving relationships between homosexuals. Therefore, anyone who objects to homosexuality due to “religious reasons” has no basis for their bigotry.

 

[sojourner]

All sex outside traditional, monogamous heterosexual marriage is spiritually damaging to those who perform it.

1) define “spiritually damaging”
2) Lots of biblical heroes were not monogamous, so your statement is biblically indefensible

Thus warning those who have gay or non-marital relationships that they are harming themselves, is being kind.

Isn’t systemic violence of dehumanizing minority groups (in this case homosexuals) spiritually damaging? Such violence isn’t “nice” it’s deplorable — especially when justified in the name of Jesus.

Hate the sin, love the sinner"

See above. You’ve just managed to dehumanize a whole group of people. Congratulations.

 

[Darkforbid]

I read that a lot, but what atheist propaganda would that be? I visit no atheist web sites. Why would I? Atheism requires no other knowledge apart from the idea that a thing shouldn't be believed unless it is adequately supported by evidence, and evidence for gods is insufficient to support belief.

It's time for Christians to recognize that their bad PR comes from them. I learned about Christianity from Christian, first by being one for about a decade, then by seeing Christianity in the news, then by participating in religious message boards like this for the past decade, where I've done an informal survey of the spectrum of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Baha'i, and secular humanists, and have developed a spectrum for each from best to worst, with relative frequencies. That is, I learn about what the Baha'i religion does for its adherents by noting their relative disposition, intelligence, and character. And then compare that to the assortment of Christians we see, and secular humanists, to get a sense of how these ideologies affect people.

If people tell you that they don't think much of Christianity, it isn't due to propaganda. Most secular humanists are skilled critical thinkers and are not susceptible to indoctrination by propaganda.

I don't care how many times somebody repeats an idea, it doesn't become mine until I am given a reason to make it mine. It's the faith-based thinker that is susceptible to indoctrination. Once one becomes accustomed to skeptical empirical thought, others cannot simply insert ideas into his head through repetition. That's for Sunday school - you know, "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so." Rinse, lather and repeat. What's that if not indoctrination - repetition of an unevidenced idea until it is believed? What is saying grace at mealtime but indoctrination - repetition to reinforce a belief? Critical thinking entails rejecting this kind of passive absorption of unexamined ideas.

My tradition, secular humanism, promotes academic-style teaching and learning, which is radically different and rejects that kind of thinking. The evolutionary biology professor doesn't mindlessly repeat an unsupported meme. He'll show you the evidence that Darwin had at his disposal, and what he concluded from it. It probably won't be repeated again all semester except in your textbook, and you won't be asked if you believe it - just do you remember what was taught.

Incidentally, the secular humanists have the best track record. A greater fraction of them are very well educated, trained in critical thinking skills, and seem to be tolerant, good-natured, well-meaning, upright people. I haven't encountered a homophobic one yet. I like the kind of people this ideology generates very much.

The Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and the Baha'i all do pretty well.

Among Christians, the Catholics do the best. Among the Protestants, the fundamentalists and creationists do the worst. Just look at the white evangelicals in America. They vote for pedophiles and men who have affairs on their wives with porn stars. What should I think of that? How should I view a religion that turns out such people by the busload? Pretty poorly, I'd say, and that feeling doesn't come from any atheistic propaganda site. It comes right from Christianity.

Well personally I've only encountered one secular humanist online and countless people who claim their religion is secular humanism. In fact I've become very skilled at spoting fakes who claim to be members of the secular humanism religion

Your post rang a few alarm bell for me but let's see

 

[JJ50]

First off, I’m a huge advocate for homosexuals, homosexual marriage, and equitable treatment of the LGBTQ community. But I do submit that Jesus could not have been gay. Here’s why:

In the culture of the Bible, sexual orientation was unknown. Since, in the Bible, Jesus is largely a mythic figure, we have to treat Jesus more as a character in a story when making assumptions about him that aren’t spelled out in the texts. That is, we can’t just assume that Jesus might have been some unspecified way or another. He just is as the texts portray him. Since the writers didn’t know homosexuality is a real thing, they could not have conceived of Jesus as being gay, and would not have written him into the story that way.

But I agree. Homosexuality is not addressed in the Bible, and the injunctions against homosexual acts have nothing to do with consensual, loving relationships between homosexuals. Therefore, anyone who objects to homosexuality due to “religious reasons” has no basis for their bigotry.

Good post.

 

[RESOLUTION]

THE BIBLE IS NOT EVIDENCE. In my opinion, it is a book written by humans with no input from any god, and you can't prove otherwise.

How do you propose to use such an argument when you yourself are using evidence from the bible like Jesus Christ and have this thread 'Bringing Christianity into disrepute'. Without the bible how do you make you claims that the people you are attacking are anything to do with Christianity? You cannot make accusations and call people Christians or bring Christianity into disrepute unless you first know what Christianity is. As an atheist you need the bible and as I have clearly pointed out the bible shows your accusations to be flawed.

 

[JJ50]

How do you propose to use such an argument when you yourself are using evidence from the bible like Jesus Christ and have this thread 'Bringing Christianity into disrepute'. Without the bible how do you make you claims that the people you are attacking are anything to do with Christianity? You cannot make accusations and call people Christians or bring Christianity into disrepute unless you first know what Christianity is. As an atheist you need the bible and as I have clearly pointed out the bible shows your accusations to be flawed.

I was a born again Christian as a young person, so I know all about that faith. It was when I started to read the Bible and question what was in it that my faith went down the nearest sewer.

 

[RESOLUTION]

I was a born again Christian as a young person, so I know all about that faith. It was when I started to read the Bible and question what was in it that my faith went down the nearest sewer.

Interesting, which parts of the bible and when did you become a 'believer'.